Best DSLR for motorcross pics?

Hello,

The more I read the more confused I seem to get about which camera to purchase. I need a new camera which will be used mostly for taking pictures of my kids racing motocross. I will use it for other shots to but this is my primary reason for thinking I need a dslr. The shots will range anywhere from 10 feet away to 100 feet away. I'm hoping to keep my budget around $1500 but could spend more.

What would be the best camea and lens for me?

Thanks to anyone for advice which can help clear my confusion.

No need to be confused, the camera is not important. The lens is though.

For what you want to shoot, you will need a zoom 70-300 (or something like that) and with "F 2.8" == lets a lot of light in == allows high shutter-speed, which you need for fast moving targets. And those are expensive.

So, you better go shop for a lens and buy the lowest priced camera to go with it. Maybe someone else knows more affordable lenses that are useful for you - maybe 3rd party lenses. It may be possible to that kind of lens + body for 1500$

Any entry-level camera will do, they all have A "S"-program (shutter-priority) for setting the right shutter-speed with auto-iso.

Greetings

Does the Nikon D40 or D40x or the Olympus 410 have a lense like you suggest? I am female and have small hands so the Olympus caught my eye as being light weight and easy to handle.

Thanks for the suggestion.

Well, I have done some searching and I found a Sigma apo 100-300 F4 for 1043 Euro
(as I am in Europe) and the Nikon D40 with standard kit lens goes 450 Euro.
So you see that the lens is much more costly then the body.

And it is only a F4 lens. It should work well on bright sunny days, if cloudy, you will probably have to raise ISO to "HI" = 3200 (which gives more noise in the picture.

There is still the possibility of using a prime lens though, that is a fixed focal length lens that doesn't zoom.
Hope you have an idea now.

Greetings.

turtletrax said:

Hello,

The more I read the more confused I seem to get about which camera to
purchase. I need a new camera which will be used mostly for taking
pictures of my kids racing motocross. I will use it for other shots
to but this is my primary reason for thinking I need a dslr. The
shots will range anywhere from 10 feet away to 100 feet away. I'm
hoping to keep my budget around $1500 but could spend more.

Click to expand...

You do have a small budget. So:

• get one camera + kit lens;
• get a longer lens, faster lens;
• enjoy

I'd recommend Canon or Nikon; Oly might be interesting - check prices.

For Canon, a decent setup about your budget would be:

• 400d + 18-55 kit (IS maybe - the IS is not kit lens) - 600$. You might look for more kits. With the IS, it's body only and separate lens, about 700$
• 70-200 f4 or f2.8 - 540$ or 1100$

BH prices.

You'll also need cards, batteries, camera bag, etc. You might want a monopod - longer lenses are heavy to hold for a few hours.

Also check lens characteristics, including size and weight.

In this kind of setup, the body will loose value pretty fast, but the long lens will get you good quality and bring back lots of cash if you want to sell it later.

turtletrax said:

What would be the best camea and lens for me?

Click to expand...

A better body is quite out of your budget, unfortunately. You might want to add it later, or not.

turtletrax said:

Thanks to anyone for advice which can help clear my confusion.

Click to expand...

LOL, you caught me in speed --- Nikon sure has those lenses and the D40 is a lightweight like the Oly. But I don't know much about Oly. Better ask someone else.

My budget isnt set in stone, that was just a number I was hoping to stay around. However I can see that I am most likely going to go well over that. I really do want to get a setup which will do what I need to and I will be happy with.

I have also looked at the Nikon D80 and just recently the Sony A700 caught my eye. The Sony is quite a bit more expensive but it looks like a great camera.

Anyway with that said I can see that I will need to spend quite a bit on a nice lense to go with which ever body I choose. Something keeps tliing me I will not be happy with the entry level D40, but I'm not sure why. I guess thats why I keep searching instead of just going and buying it.

Thanks again for all you help.

So you feel you're not gonna like the D40? Please tell me why --- I have it and it will do much more then you expect. By all means, if you like the Oly, go for it, or any other brand for that matter. Don't think that because they're entry-level cameras, they are lower in Image Quality. Much much more depends on the one looking through the viewfinder ;-)
But, first of all, if you're gonna stretch your budget, do it on the lens.

The lens will keep it's value over it's long life and you can use it on a newer body later on. Any 2.8 lens is a "lust" lens --- everyone lusts for such a lens.

The body is dispense-ware. By the time it is worn out, you will (hopefully) have learned how to handle it and can upgrade then.

The D80 has more features, but bulkier too. Go to a store and really feel and handle them.

I think you've made a very good point about getting a nice lens and then upgrading the body later if I need to. I'm also sure the D40 will probably be more camera than I need or know how to use. I've handled it in the store and I do like the size of it. I think I will either give the D40 or D40x a try. Do you suggest sticking with Nikon lenses or are the 3rd party lenses as good?

Thanks for helping me make up my mind

Nikons are always a tad better with nikons. But the quality of 3rd party lenses is not bad at all, just not the nec plus ultra, but mostly a LOT cheaper. To be fair, Canon is overall cheaper for the same first grade lenses. 3rd party lenses are seldom used by pros --

I am not pro so ............. Sigma Tokina Tamron all make fair lenses. Give a bit, take a bit.
lol

RE> Do you suggest sticking with Nikon lenses or are the 3rd party lenses as good?

Photography can be confusing.

In an effort to make things simpler for beginning photographers, Nikon has designed the D40 and D40X so that they only take certain lenses; some from Nikon and some from other manufacturers.

Depending on the models, some third party lenses are better than Nikon lenses, and some Nikon lenses are better than third party lenses. And "better" is a word with broad definitions.

Taking pictures outdoors in decent light does not require a lens with f2.8 in its description.

With a D40 or D40X, any Nikon lens that reaches 200mm will be fine for your purposes, and Nikon offers some two-lens kits.

You can also consider a Canon XT or a Canon XTi. The XT is older, but still available, often at bargain prices. Before Christmas, Canon has a two-lens package that was a real bargain.

With Canon bodies, Sigma and Tamron lenses work fine, too. Sigma, Tamron, Tokina are the three top inde[pendent lens makers, and they manufacture lenses with connections that fit different bodies. Make sure, for instance, that the box a Sigma lens comes in says "Canon" on it if you are buying the lens to fit on a Canon body.

After a while using a $500 body and a $300 lens you'll have a really good idea of how and if and why you might want something more expensive.

There's nothing wrong with Olympus, by the way. I just don't know anything specific about Olympus cameras.

When you're at the store, look at monopods -- these are like one-legged tripods, and are very handy for sports photography because they keep the camera near your eye, without a lot of strain on your shoulder muscles.

BAK

BAK

Which lense would you recommend as an all around "good for almost all shots" lense to have? I'm not sure if I should get the kit with the 2 lenses or just the body.

I was looking at the 70-200mm f/2.8 ED-IF AF-S VR but it looks rather large and not one that I would use all the time or leave on the camera. Also, is there anything special I should look for in a lense? I'm guessing I will want AF and VR in my lenses but other than that I don't know if there is something else I should be looking for other than zoom and speed.

Well, maybe use the kit lenses first and wait and see. You will find out what you need eventually.

If you're talking about the 2 kit lenses with the D40 (18-50 / 55-200), they're both very good. And you can get the 55-200 with VR BUT!!!!! VR doesn't help shooting moving subjects, only high shutterspeed , ergo "fast" glass (2.8) helps.

And yes, the 70-200 2.8 is a tube LOL . It is a PRO-tube though, made for sports, action, flying things, racing,and so on. You have time on your side, try the 55-200 (3.5/5.6) first and find out........ As for more detailed pricing of fast zooms/primes, maybe better go to the "lenses-forum" Nikon/Canon/Oly/Sigma.They may show you cheaper alternatives that work fine.
Have fun with whatever you choose.

You're right, photography can, and is confusing for us newbies who are used to point and shoot cameras. It seems the more I read the more confused I get.

Thanks for the tip on lenses. I'd say 95% of my sports shots will be outside so the lense information is good to know. The f2.8 is quite expensive so it'll be nice to save some $$ if I can.

Are the lneses that come with the kits worth paying for or should I get just the body and upgrade on better lenses?

Dear turtletracks,

LOL

Like I said in previous post, the kit-lenses are fine and made for allround purposes.
Take them and try them out.
And wait and see..... You will find out what you need or don't need.

Greetings.

turtletrax said:

Hello,

The more I read the more confused I seem to get about which camera to
purchase. I need a new camera which will be used mostly for taking
pictures of my kids racing motocross. I will use it for other shots
to but this is my primary reason for thinking I need a dslr. The
shots will range anywhere from 10 feet away to 100 feet away. I'm
hoping to keep my budget around $1500 but could spend more.

What would be the best camera and lens for me?

Click to expand...

For that specific requirement my first choice would be a Canon 40D with a 70-200 f/4L. $1149 and $539 at B&H. What this will give you in addition to amazing image quality is class-leading focus speed and accuracy - perfect for fast-moving targets. The IS version of the lens would give you an additional option of easier panning shots at slower shutter speeds but it is much more expensive at $984.

Close second would be a 400D (or its successor, expected soon) with the same lens.

The f/2.8 version is a heavy, expensive lens which is wonderful - but overkill I think.

Either way you would also need a 17/18-xx lens for more general photography. I have a Sigma 18-50 f/2.8 but I would suggest the Sigma 17-70 as a slightly more versatile option ($389)

Thank you for the specific lens recommendations. For some reason I have not looked closely at the Canons but I will do so.

Thanks again!

turtletrax said:

Which lense would you recommend as an all around "good for almost all
shots" lense to have? I'm not sure if I should get the kit with the
2 lenses or just the body.

I was looking at the 70-200mm f/2.8 ED-IF AF-S VR but it looks rather
large and not one that I would use all the time or leave on the
camera. Also, is there anything special I should look for in a
lense? I'm guessing I will want AF and VR in my lenses but other
than that I don't know if there is something else I should be looking
for other than zoom and speed.

Click to expand...

First - I have Nikon so I'll only comment on the Nikons!

Not to devalue taking pictures of the kids, but the 70-200VR is overkill for kid's sports for a new photographer. As suggested, maybe try the kit lenses for a while and see if you're getting what you want from it. If you need extra reach the 70-300 VR is a nice lens for the money. I might be inclined to skip the 55-200 altogether and just get the 70-300.

You really don't need to spend $1600+ on a lens to take nice pics of the kids, even sports pics of the kids.

Also, the D40 has a number of drawbacks:

1) it isn't the best built camera so you do need to be careful with it (my friend dropped hers from about 2 feet and the AF stopped working and the body coverings cracked)

2) it takes only AF-S lenses, so it limits you to those if you want to retain autofocus. Stepping up to a D80 (or any other Nikon DLSR for that matter) gives you the ability to buy a much wider range of non AF-S (but still AF) lenses.
3) Even with my small hands, I find the D40 uncomfortable small.

I think you should look harder at the Canon, great for sports photography.

Look at all the news on TV, the majority of photographers you see taking sport seem to use Canon and the majority of news photograhers seem to use Nikon, I think Canon have a better line up of Lenses for sport and a quicker auto focus.(My opinion only)

I agree that the 40D coupled with a 70-200 f2.8 is the ideal but its big and expensive, the EF 70-200 f4L USM is lighter and 1/2 the price and will take just a good a picture in good outdoor light, you can get an IS version (a little bit bigger and dearer).

It will cover all your sport and Portrait needs and when your budget will stretch get a AF-S 17-55 f2.8 IS USM for all other stuff, you will probably never need any other lens.

One thing I would ask you to ponder on is advice of " buy this and try it then upgrade later" Your childrens photos are very precious. You never never never get the chance to "do it again" because the moment you capture is fleeting and never reoccurs.

If you take these Precious shots with equipment less than adequate imagine yourself in 5 years time, showing the results, "here's Johhny doing that double turnover twist" "he only ever did it once" sorry its a bit dark and out of focus.

Also get yourself a Monopod, even a very cheap one will take the strain out of sport shots.

You make a very good point about upgrading. Which model of Canon do you recommend for my situation? Is there a kit you'd recommend or just the body and purchase a separate lense?

Thank you